91–100 of 470 posts
This is unfortunate for many of the rank and file Uber employees but it’s good news for the stock market in general. It’s showing we’re not in a tech bubble and companies are still going to be valued based on how strong their business case is.
With the burn rate uber has, it'll be bankrupt in < 2 years. There are no other suckers to buy in after the public.
This is unfortunate for many of the rank and file Uber employees but it’s good news for the stock market in general. It’s showing we’re not in a tech bubble and companies are still going to be valued based on how strong their business case is.
With the burn rate uber has, it'll be bankrupt in < 2 years. There are no other suckers to buy in after the public.
I'm basing that opinion on what I've seen in my city. When Uber and Lyft left Austin, there were lots of alternatives that had existed or popped up to fill the space.
Aside from brand recognition, what does Uber have that the others don't?
As an employee you typically don’t want your stock to skyrocket on the IPO. Most that do plummet as early investors sell and the employees (who have a lockup period preventing them from selling) watch their “gains” disappear. In my opinion, it’s better to have an accurately priced stock that grows at a healthy rate.
A cart before the horse. Who gets the most profit? The people who finance the project or the people who actually do the project? In a just world, would it be 50/50? Seems skewed... without the builders, there would no buildings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just like Amazon at its IPO.
My feeling though is that Amazon had a much larger moat to build, with distribution networks, warehouses, logistics etc. With Uber, what's their moat, so that when they raise prices to become profitable users don't just move away? Lyft/local taxi companies/public transport, all have the infrastructure to provide the service that uber provides.
Unprofitable companies are the only ones that really benefit from IPOs. An IPO is basically a way for the company to raise money, but tis time straight from the public. Usually when it gets harder and harder for them to attract private investors. The IPO listing basically guarantees that they won't take the public's billions and run. Successful companies with perfect cash flows (think of Github, Valve, IKEA) always t…
Some notes from watching Uber open: - if it closes below $45(its IPO price) it will be the first time since 2008 that the happened for a major IPO - TD Ameritrade executed more orders in the first 10 minutes of trading than they did for the first 2.5 hours with Lyft. - Uber is 9% of all trading at TD Ameritrade, retail loves this stock, - market is down today, which isn't helping Uber but its probably not much of a f…
> Boo to the underwriters(Morgan Stanley), who seemed to misjudge the market's appetite Who suffers if the price is quickly adjusted downward by the market? How is that different than it being released at that final market price from the get go? Naively I would think that setting it too high ensures maximum value is captured rather than going to early traders.
So the bank has every incentive to price it low, and usually does. So when the market goes even lower, we know that the IPO was done out of desperation and that early investors who had influence over the IPO price were eager to dump some or all of their positions.
One day is too soon to know for certain that this happened. But if the price is still down a week or two later then it probably did.
Unprofitable companies are the only ones that really benefit from IPOs. An IPO is basically a way for the company to raise money, but tis time straight from the public. Usually when it gets harder and harder for them to attract private investors. The IPO listing basically guarantees that they won't take the public's billions and run. Successful companies with perfect cash flows (think of Github, Valve, IKEA) always t…
Unprofitable companies are the only ones that really benefit from IPOs. An IPO is basically a way for the company to raise money, but tis time straight from the public. Usually when it gets harder and harder for them to attract private investors. The IPO listing basically guarantees that they won't take the public's billions and run. Successful companies with perfect cash flows (think of Github, Valve, IKEA) always t…
A company can be profitable and still need more working capital to expand.
That being said, I don't know what to make of Uber, Lyft and WeWork (future) IPO's yet, but I am highly skeptical
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if it closes below $45 it will be the first time since 2008 that the happened for a major IPO Sorry, first time that what happened?
edited the comment, $45 was the IPO price, meant it will be the fist time since 2008 that a major IPO closed below its IPO price on the first day of trading.